Police chiefs blast Healey on gun permits

[SiameseRat]

What a bunch of hooey

“How can’t I support a candidate that has that kind of agenda versus a candidate who was going to strip us of one of our tools,” the Chief Gemme said.

A tool for what? Oppression of the many and reward for the few? Ayup, uh huh, that's what I thought. What a buttmonkey!

 

[JonJ]

Disorderly conduct. Disturbing the peace. Urinating in public. There are a lot of things someone can be caught on, no?

Yes, if they're doing it. If not, make it up?

 

[taz-2005]

This is what I emailed the telegram and CC'ed GOAL.

I was amazed at how one sided this “story” was. You should have included remarks from the GOAL foundation to repute the misrepresentations of Worcester Police Chief Gemme. The right of the people to defend themselves from violent attackers and habitual criminals should not subject to the whim of the local chiefs of police. It is his dangerous ideals along with those of Thomas Menino and Tom Reilly that have caused violent crime to rise in the Commonwealth. Regularly attacking legal responsible gun owners does nothing to stop criminals in fact it shows just how ineffective gun control laws are. The state Constitution is crystal clear in Article XVII; The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

 

[Lynne]

The story was in the Eagle Tribune ( http://www.eagletribune.com/local/local_story_292154834 ). What surprised the hell out of me was the fact that the Lawrence COP AGREES with Healy!!! Keep in mind that he's one of the ones that requires a letter from a doctor saying you're fit to be a gun owner. No. Andover and Andover's COPs don't like the idea. I'm SOOOOOO shocked.

 

[Jose]

Does JonJ realize that the overwhelming majority of US citizens do not ask permission from anyone to own any kind of non-FA firearm they want?

Why I even acquired some without even going through a NICS!!!

Imagine that.....

 

[JonJ]

Does JonJ realize that the overwhelming majority of US citizens do not ask permission from anyone to own any kind of non-FA firearm they want?

Why I even acquired some without even going through a NICS!!!

Imagine that.....

I do and so have I.
What's the point you're trying to make?

 

[JimB]

its simpler

Its a POWER thing, "loose control" is the key word, thats their concern
nothing else.

JimB

 

[MarkM]

Gemme is so full of horse s**t!

Someone should remind him that the Constitution says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

not:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless their local chief feels otherwise or their wife gets a restraining order"

 

[JonJ]

Gemme is so full of horse s**t!

Someone should remind him that the Constitution says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

not:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless their local chief feels otherwise or their wife gets a restraining order"

But when you live behind enemy lines:

Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886, 343 N.E. 2d 847
(1976).
An individual has no federal or state constitutional or statutory right to
possess or carry a firearm.

 

[squarooticus]

But when you live behind enemy lines:

Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886, 343 N.E. 2d 847
(1976).
An individual has no federal or state constitutional or statutory right to
possess or carry a firearm.

Which is a perfect illustration of why people should never give anyone the authority to deny them this right, for any reason.

Kyle

 

[Admin]

But when you live behind enemy lines:

I like that quote Jon.

 

[Migmojo]

Okay, so I was a little nasty at the end. F*ck em'! I haven't had enough caffeine yet and they're corrupt a**h***s anyway.

I hope they don't send a letter or call your police chief, could be nasty next time you try to renew your license.

 

[MarkM]

But when you live behind enemy lines:

Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886, 343 N.E. 2d 847
(1976).
An individual has no federal or state constitutional or statutory right to
possess or carry a firearm.

.... and I think Mr. Justice White was full of Shite when he ruled that.

I'm sorry you live behind enemy lines, lets hope the situation improves for law-abiding gun owner in MA in the future.

 

[Admin]

I hope they don't send a letter or call your police chief, could be nasty next time you try to renew your license.

He's not going to get a ALP any ways, what the hell does it matter at this point.

 

[JellyFish]

My license isn't up for renewal for 6 years. F*ck em'! I'll be out of Meninostan long before that happens.

I hope they don't send a letter or call your police chief, could be nasty next time you try to renew your license.

 

[Jose]

I do and so have I.
What's the point you're trying to make?

So far all I have seen you do in this thread is defend the status quo by giving example after example of where the local PD chief knows better than some objective state board who should or who should not get an LTC or whatever you call that permission slip.

Am I wrong?

And why would anyone even defend the concept of a state board that does what the chiefs do now? Why is not a NICS check enough? And why should the .gov regulate the sale of private property between two individuals? As long as there is no fraud, what business is it of any government branch at any level?

 

[JonJ]

So far all I have seen you do in this thread is defend the status quo by giving example after example of where the local PD chief knows better than some objective state board who should or who should not get an LTC or whatever you call that permission slip.

Am I wrong?

And why would anyone even defend the concept of a state board that does what the chiefs do now? Why is not a NICS check enough? And why should the .gov regulate the sale of private property between two individuals? As long as there is no fraud, what business is it of any government branch at any level?

Yes, you are wrong.
I haven't defended any such thing. Go back and read what I stated. It's the way the system works here and I've done nothing more than point that fact out.

 

[drgrant]

So far all I have seen you do in this thread is defend the status quo by giving example after example of where the local PD chief knows better than some objective state board who should or who should not get an LTC or whatever you call that permission slip.

Am I wrong?

And why would anyone even defend the concept of a state board that does what the chiefs do now? Why is not a NICS check enough? And why should the .gov regulate the sale of private property between two individuals? As long as there is no fraud, what business is it of any government branch at any level?

IMO, I don't think JonJ or anyone else in this thread is really "defending"
the BS that goes on here..... we're just being realists.

"NICS only/free by default" is a pipe dream in MA and will -NEVER- be reality
here, so forget about that. (at least it won't be reality as long as this state
is like 75% democrap). Most of us would like to buy/sell/own guns without ANY
restrictions, but that's not happening anytime soon. That is reality
here. In MA, gun ownership is a PRIVLEDGE, not a RIGHT. (I obviously
don't agree with that conceptually, but if one wants to own guns legally in the
state, one -must- accept that concept at least in the context of the requirements
at hand...)

The ideas being floated around in this thread are based on realism given
the circumstances, not "what it should be". We all know what it
should be. There's a big difference in between that and what is reality
in this god awful state. Reality in MA means having to compromise... and
having to do some chip-trading/shell gaming to get improvements. We don't
have the votes in this state to flamethrower the establishment, so the
only inroads we really can make are through incrementalism.... by cultivating
common sense improvements to gun laws that are harder for the antis or
their cohorts to resist. Sometimes that means making tradeoffs. If it
means that a habitual drunk can't get a gun license, but a clean man
can now GET a license, that wasnt able to get one before, because of
his a**h*** chief, that's an improvement I think most of us would
agree with. The improvement outweighs the costs, if it's implemented
right. There are far more people denied licensing or ALP in MA
that have 110% clean records, than there are public drunks/gang bangers
that have difficulty getting a gun license. And further, the problem is
exacerbated with the existing system because there is no clean mechanism
of due process, especially not in the case of something like a restricted
license.

Don't get me wrong... I'd rather not make compromises AT ALL. But if it
means getting a ton of people a license that wouldn't have one otherwise,
and denying a few miscreants, then I'm all for it.

-Mike

 

[dbrowne1]

I'm so glad I moved to Ameri...er, Virginia.

And what is this business about denying permits to anyone who has ever been arrested for misdemeanors? Did they abolish courts, and the concept of trial and conviction, in Massachusetts while I've been gone?

 

[Coyote33]

But when you live behind enemy lines:

Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886, 343 N.E. 2d 847
(1976).
An individual has no federal or state constitutional or statutory right to
possess or carry a firearm.

... and people say the NRA is helping here?

 

[Admin]

Jose,

I know Jon pretty well, he would never defend the current system. I think maybe you mis-understood his comments.

 

[dbrowne1]

... and people say the NRA is helping here?

They have tried. Trust me. I was an intern at GOAL back in 1998 when all that garbage came down. The NRA was involved, we retained Stephen Halbrook (one of the top firearms regulation attorneys in the country) and fought it. It's hard to win when the entire system has already made up its mind.

 

[Coyote33]

So, how does one change the law? Is this a legislative thing, or an executive decision? Short of major overhauls and reforms, how can some small steps be taken? Weigh in here: redo MA gun laws

 

[Scrivener]

So, how does one change the law? Is this a legislative thing, or an executive decision?

Before weighing in with your opinion, how about passing jr. high civics first?

 

[Coyote33]

Before weighing in with your opinion, how about passing jr. high civics first?

Yeah, this accomplished a lot.

 

[Scrivener]

Yeah, this accomplished a lot.

In your case, obviously not enough.

 

[JonJ]

Before weighing in with your opinion, how about passing jr. high civics first?

Yeah, this accomplished a lot.

In your case, obviously not enough.

And with that, STOP.

Back on topic.

 

[Scrivener]

Acknowledged.

 

[Coyote33]

But when you live behind enemy lines:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkM View Post
Gemme is so full of horse s**t!

Someone should remind him that the Constitution says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

not:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless their local chief feels otherwise or their wife gets a restraining order"

But when you live behind enemy lines:


Quote:

Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886, 343 N.E. 2d 847
(1976).
An individual has no federal or state constitutional or statutory right to
possess or carry a firearm.

Well, I guess now that the Supreme Court has ruled, this can now be looked at differently.

 

[hminsky]

Quote:



But when you live behind enemy lines:


Quote:




Well, I guess now that the Supreme Court has ruled, this can now be looked at differently.

There was a similar case in New York, around the same time, where the courts explicitly based their decision on their determination that the 2nd ammendment was a "collective" right. That ought to get appealed also, I bet there are dozens of these.